Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] new potential issue with Proprietary / Private TLV numbers?

From: Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:54:40 -0400 (EDT)

From: Jeff Learman <[email-masked]>

	Radia, what was the context of the excerpt?  Was it very general,
	or was it in reference to ISIS WG work?

The excerpt was from the minutes of the IPsec WG meeting in Yokohama that
were just posted to the IPsec list. I believe it was
reporting on what various people said at the mike, so it is just
the note-taker's interpretation of a comment Steve made. There are
many possible sources of noise in this channel (Steve could have
misunderstood something some IESG member said, the notetaker could have
misunderstood what Steve said, etc.). So no reason to panic. Obviously,
we should go to Steve for clarification on what he said. And if the
IESG really has decreed no extensions allowed, then I do think we
ought to argue about it, because operationally such things seem
very important.

Radia

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:00:58 -0700

Radia, folks

 I don't think there's much to be worried about here.
 The IESG should have a detailed explanation of its position
 on this issue later (I'll forward it to the list).

 My recommendation regarding the draft would be to emphasize
 that understanding of this TLV is not required for interoperability
 and that implementations must not use the contents of this TLV
 to affect their routing table calculation.
 
-- 
Alex

---

From: Jeff Learman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:12:56 -0400

Well put.  It could be the shortest useful RFC ever!